As for resonance and vibration, I've neverheard that "tube amps are more resistant to this factor." I always thought they were LESS resistant, because of the glass tubes. That's a startling claim and I have never heard that before. I have never heard this from anyone else either, just fits with logic, to me, simpler circuits, less components, heavy transformers, mass damping. Think about it, less stuff to resonate in electrical fields means less hash i.e subtle information. The vibrations I refer to are extremely tiny. I had similar issues with depth and have been looking at this subject lately in my solid state system. I can tell you the changes as a result have been simply astonishing. Not a plug, but Critical Mass Systems footers for electronics and speakers have turned my world upside down. From cones and sorbothane in the early days to springs to v v expensive bearing based vibration control devices now, nothing compares. Best wishes |
|
Tube amplifier are very vulnerable to vibrations for sure....
In a bad acoustical room (most room) they will fare better than most S.S. because of their more organic quality...
But many S.S. amplifier can sound organic too.... I own one...
Vibrations is a problem for all gear, anyway....like acoustic is or electrical noise floor.... |
Critical Mass... found a price list.
|
@hilde45 - I am quite familiar with that amp as I own both it and the 120 (little brother). Both excellent amps with great bass control and articulation. Certainly hifi and quite a bargain at the price on offer. However, your finding is the same as mine - they present a forward sound stage with limited depth. I've just purchased Frank Van Alstine's latest DVA M225 monoblocks - first retail customer - I posted a review on AudioCircle. Boy howdy do these amps deliver - they have a wide and deep soundstage. So certainly ss can do depth when well implemented. |
Thanks @wjob the DVA M225 sounds like a better fit. |
At least from what I’ve read day-to-day from Paul McGowan regarding designing, and then listening, seemed to apply most to the speakers they are creating where they use the IRS Vs as their archetype sound to try to match and then build upon without simply copying Arnie Nudell’s incredible speakers (not just add modern crossovers, etc). They found that two different speakers prototypes they came up that demonstrated the same “math” on “paper” sounded distinctly different. They also found that creating a world class speaker is extremely difficult. I get the impression it is arguably the most difficult component to “master” from the ground up even when you know your specific goals. That really stuck with me. Anyway, that’s a whole new rabbit hole discussion.
@hilde45 my compliments on your moderating. Want to do this for every top level discussion on Audiogon? You’re the antithesis of our loathed friend, who shall not be named, that thankfully got banned a few months ago. He “thought”, for instance, the best, and only speakers worth anything, would be a concrete edifice that he would somehow design with his all encompassing wisdom 😂. All he did was unleash anarchy and anger, accompanied by virtual torches and dynamite, into the population🤬🔥🧨. |
@parker65310 Thanks for your post and your nice comment. I wouldn't be a moderator in anything but a classroom. There, carrots and sticks exist. Here, in the West World of audio discussion, almost anything seems to go! I'd get too many cuts and bruises.
I do feel that if I start a thread, I need to try to keep responding to comments and try to summarize where things are at, unless it just takes off in a (happy or unhappy) tangential direction. And I'm happy to back off if what becomes a side discussion takes over. I've learned a lot from these threads. There are some masterclass level teachers here with a lot of experience. It pays to listen. |
My 1993 B&K EX442 Sonata (350 wpc/4 ohms) puts me right in the studio whenever I listen to "Kind of Blue". It's pairing with my MMGs (out 3' from the wall) gives me an excellent soundstage in both width and depth. |
|
My 1993 B&K EX442 Sonata (350 wpc/4 ohms) puts me right in the studio whenever I listen to "Kind of Blue". It's pairing with my MMGs (out 3' from the wall) gives me an excellent soundstage in both width and depth.
@hartf36
Mine broke beyond parts-repair, 50yr tech tried four times to repair it, oh well, sold for parts. For 20+ years I was lucky to own and listen to my former dual mono B&K EX442-0 version of your amp. Your earlier version may have been a little more sweet sounding. I've shared with @hilde45 how musical and 3D that amp could be [at times]. It was $2,200 retail in 1990 I think it was. The magic would only kick in after the dual mono transformers got really HOT, and that's what killed it inside over time. Frank at AVA says B&K copied his designs, whatever the case, some of the lineup back then sounded really-really nice for the $. Digital, preamp-processors, and Home Theater software is what caused them to fold in the end beyond recovery. Sad. Had they stuck to simple 2ch audio, they'd still be around I gather. The meaty little SS affordability amps that could, and sounded a bit like tube once they got nice and toasty warm. :) |
I read many but not all responses and there is something that seems to be missing... that is the particular component to component compatibility of the amplifier and the rest of the gear it is associated with. To get the best result each component should work optimally with the other components in the chain. Your pre-amp or speakers may not work best in combination with a particular SS amplifier or cables.
|
This can be true, and the weakest links in the chain can impact the end-to-end result. Without having different components to easily rotate in/out it can be more challenging to easily identify and where to upgrade next. Unless of course for the lucky ones who can afford to buy their top-4 components of choice and return-ship the other 3 after the are done with evaluating in batches, its another way to save time and cut to the chase faster. |
Most Audiophiles don’t realize that your amp,preamp can greatly be improved.
the parts quality on the majority of products under $10k is average at best.
I just bought the excellent Coda CSIB integrated amp .Stereo times has a excellent review ,and build quality and sound much better then average and over built by most any standard , look inside your amp ,most have a small toroidal transformer
the coda is potted for ultra low noise and 3kva 4 x the average and over 80k
in capacitance. That’s why I inspect every product I buy. I did upgrade the very good rel multi caps to the VH Audio Odam caps ,in the preamp section
that was all there was to upgrade . Coda has been in business for over 35 years
and very much under the radar , well worth checking out ,
and a 10 year warranty.
|
Planning on upgrading the preamp after warranty is expired. |
Solid state amps do not play depth in the recording unless the recording has depth information but when you play a good recording they will have a lot of depth especially if your speakers are two or more feet out from the wall behind them.
|
+1 @speakermaster
tube gear tends to 'manufacture' a degree of imaging depth it seems, whereas ss gear does not, generally |
Solid state amps do not play depth in the recording unless the recording has depth information but when you play a good recording they will have a lot of depth especially if your speakers are two or more feet out from the wall behind them. In a room with acoustic controls in place, any relatively good amplifier WELL DESIGNED, produce depth accordingly proportionate to the ability of the recording engineer. ANY "well designed" S.S. or tubes.... Most people think they listen to their turntable or dac or amplifier or speakers.... It is a half-truth, then worst than a falsity.... We listen WITH and FROM the room filled by the reflecting waves crossing different pressure zones ... Then for sure there is a difference in sound quality between dacs or amplifiers or speakers.... But there is most of the times way more less difference between pieces of gear than the huge difference between listening in an acoustically controlled room OR in an uncontrolled one... Why most people then speak without end about the differences in sound between their gear pieces and only boast about them? Because all marketing is there to sell "sonic heaven" with the only pieces which they can sell at the price of gold: electronical design engineering new pieces of gear.... I used straws and empty cardboard rolls and discardeed plumbers tubes and pipes from my basement to create my grid of Helmholtz resonators.... Then i know what i speak about.... The audiophile value of a system is not the price paid but is BASED on the OPTIMAL RATIO : Sound quality/price... When we have any good audio system optimal by this ratio( then it is not the costlier in the world) we must take care of the ACOUSTIC of the room to go to another level.... Not necessary now to upgrade a piece at all cost by frustration...Like most people thought and did without paying attention to the acoustic... Another reason i must say is that most people are in the obligation, with no other choice, to put their system in a common room and CANNOT transform the living room into an audio laboratory like i did in a dedicated room... Sorry for you... 😥 But now you know that the most luxury and opulent tool in audio is not a piece of gear but the ROOM..... Reading posts in audio, i know for sure that most people has never lived through this process of going from an ordinary room to a controlled room....If they would have do it , they will vouch about their room value FIRST not about a branded name of speakers or amplifiers.... It is easy to replace any piece of gear by a better one, less easy to learn how to control room acoustic... And sorry buying costly acoustic panels will not do the job only half of of the job, and no sellers of acoutic panels anyway can say this truth to you if they want to sell their "miraculous" panels.... To do a good job may cost the price to enroll an acoustician for more than a week for activation of the room and not just put panels here or there.. I read an acoustician who speak about 50,000 bucks to do the job ... 😊😁 It cost me empty toilet paper rolls and straws, cardboard empty roll, plastic tube,metal pipes of various diameters etc ... Nobody will believe me.... But an Helmholtz engine do not need a precious metal enclosure or special material to work..... Acoustic MAY cost nothing, save the time of the listenings experiments like a piano tuner tune a piano, you can tune your room.... By the way my ears are average, no need of these "golden ears" spoke about by idiots....But average ears need more time..... It takes me full time 2 months for my grid.... It has been longer but not full time for the passive material treatment.... |
The OP swapped out his mono tube amps with depth for a solid state (SS) amp without depth. One swap back to validate the cause is not the recording, not the speaker placement, not room treatments. |
@decooney Exactly. @ speakermaster Solid state amps do not play depth in the recording unless the recording has depth information but when you play a good recording they will have a lot of depth especially if your speakers are two or more feet out from the wall behind them. Sorry to repeat myself, both in the OP and in the follow up posts I did, but I have stated that my comparison is very carefully limited to those recordings with depth information as demonstrated by tube amps. @mahgister I've already stated that I've paid a lot of attention to the room. You're dissertating on your favorite topic and celebrating your (apparently effective) Rube Goldberg inventions, at length, and hopefully someone benefits. It does nothing for the question at issue in my OP, but whatever. You want to write a long post about what you know and what you do and how inexpensive but effective it is? Have at it. |
@mahgister I’ve already stated that I’ve paid a lot of attention to the room. You’re dissertating on your favorite topic and celebrating your (apparently effective) Rube Goldberg inventions, at length, and hopefully someone benefits. It does nothing for the question at issue in my OP, but whatever. You want to write a long post about what you know and what you do and how inexpensive but effective it is? Have at it. I was answering to something i judged to be wrong FROM SOMEONE ELSE NOT FROM YOUR EGO....Is the threads here always for the one person asking something? Many read these posts like me.... I dont speak about politic or race or rap here....Then why not use your philosophical bent to make remark at least with humor? especially because you cannot refrain to correct me.... And i dont think my experiment with what you called "a Rube Goldberg invention" in a gibe , and which is called in science a Helmhotlz resonator , is out of the subject matter, save if you think that the question you asked only interested you... i dont know why, but you must perhaps begin to forget about a post that is not for you or then banned explicitly in your thread anything you judge out of matter or anyone you decide to hate... I will post when i judge it necessary if i want to answer someone....in ANY thread... I dont act inappropriately.... I dont think that a long post is a motive for hate .... Say it with humor i will apologize.... Take my place and read your 4 or 5 warnings against me with the same false neutral tone in other threads... Spare me FURTHER warning and call the moderator instead... By the way this acoustic subject about NO COST Helmholtz resonators is very important and NO ONE, save me, explain it...I know that for you i am an idiot with cheap "rube goldberg" fad but i dont like to be insulted...Especially if i am right... Go and look all thread...No one speak about that very important acoustical use the way it may be used...They sell acoustic panel but it is half the job.... And this is NOT MY OPINION, this is pure acoustic fact... Then before " diplomatically" insulting my device which is not a KENJIT machine nor a Rube Goldberg one save for audio snobs with costly devices, but only a legit acoustic device, think 2 times... I am also philosophically inclined , then dont be surprized if i speak about philosophy in some other threads and keep your warning.... You are not god here... I think i prefer direct insult from someone instead of being "diplomatically" warned with words without humor and a "paternal" cold tone....Hate me in silence ...By the way i like Rube Goldberg but i really hate to be treated like a clown.... I understand why you speak but try to understand other perspective...You are not the center of the world and i am not the only one to hate here... And try to refute my arguments in acoustic or other matter, instead of "warning" me.... |
@hilde45
looks like you accidentally touched the ’on’ button 😅🤣 |
@jjss49 Nothing forcing me to read it. Others can decide if my point was fair. I didn't post in haste or anger. Annoyance, yes, but not in anger. |
it is not an "accident".... it is not the first "warning" from him.... with this time a "diplomatic" insult.... Annoyance, yes, but not in anger. if you were annoyed for the first time and without insulting my device which is pure science, i would not had react and i will have apologize like i have already.... But i am not the only one at fault here.... i have the right to answer someone else than you in a post by the way...... Others can decide if my point was fair. To decide others must know that you warned me on a regular basis....But an insult is a bit too much for my temper... Sorry... I am not a children to warn nor a clown to warn.... And learn acoustic to know the difference between a Rube Goldberg machine and a no cost Helmholtz resonator... And before reacting against me in each thread think about my description of the powerful control someone could use with them to tune all acoustic features..... Study to learn if i am RIGHT or WRONG.... Spare me your paternal insult....Instead refute my claims with acoustic laws.... i cannot apologize for being too enthusiast, save if someone dont insult me and ask with humor....And i keep the right to answer SOMEONE ELSE post at any time ....Are we free? |
Gee I miss the rap and political discussions LOL |
@hilde45 ,
You've provoked a very interesting conversation!
As for the "well designed" ss amps that can reproduce depth well, IMHE, Krell older Class A designs, Pass Labs, Boulder, and more affordably Coda, Odyssey, First Watt and Sunfire all have models that I've heard do it pretty effectively when mated with appropriate speakers also capable of recreating depth.
I'd say the chances are higher with a random tube amp vs. a random ss amp, but we're not investing our money in random, are we?
Some of the rabbit holes discussed, speaker placement and room treatment are certainly worthwhile considerations and I'm glad to hear you've addressed them. I'm having a tough time buying into the concept of needing to REVISIT them due an amp change.
An observation that might help, most mixes tend to place drums and bass toward the rear of the soundstage. Maybe certain ss amps that struggle with low end frequency performance in other aspects result in the perceived lack of depth? Perhaps trying out tracks with an acoustic bass upstage would provide some insights. Cheers,
Spencer
|
@sbank Glad you like the thread. Appreciate the amp suggestions and your point about "when mated with appropriate speakers also capable of recreating depth" is a crucial condition — and no, we're not investing in random! As Dana Carvey channeling GHWB said, " Nah gonnah do it." I did play with the speakers and LP a bit to try to tease out sound stage (due an amp change) -- Didn't. Help. At. All. Put tubes back in -- sound stage was back. I like your suggestion about trying tracks with an acoustic bass upstage. @mahgister You've registered your displeasure with me in a public way. I've said I think you deserved it. Let's agree to disagree on this. You can DM me if you want, but at this point, we've both stated our positions. If not peace, at least détente. |
@mahgister You’ve registered your displeasure with me in a public way.
You called my Helmholz resonators in the public for all to read "Goldberg Rube machine " ... Try to be FAIR at least and dont put nonchalently the blame on me because i defend myself in public when i was attacked in public like you just did in this post... It is like calling someone a clown..... Where did i unsult you? An acoustic problem cannot always be solved by panels, and save for bad design amplifier, any relatively good S.S. or tubes amplifier can produce depth imaging.... it is an acoustic problem linked to the timing of the reflections yes,reverberation time, but also to the way the pressure zones of the room are distributed... These pressures zones can be modified by resonators because contrary to panels the resonators damp some frequencies and enhance others frequencies at the same time....When the geometry of a room is too irregular it can create unwanted pressures zones... then before upgrading an amp or speakers, or buying costly panels, why not trying no cost resonators you coud make yourself esthetical ...If you read you can even use them in a completely different form than my "Rube Goldberg way" with a grid of tubes and pipes for example with a box with a distribution of perforated cavities.... No cost, fun experiment and you work at the right place because depth imaging is an acoustical phenomenon linking TIMING and pressure zones distribution... My own amplifier/speaker never produce it before my acoustic experiment... Now i have it with all files accordingly to the S.Q of the recording process... «The sound impinging on a Helmholtz resonator that is not absorbed is reradiated. As the sound is reradiated from the resonator opening, it tends to be radiated in a hemisphere. This means that unabsorbed energy is diffused, and diffusion of sound is very desirable in a studio or listening room.» Master handbook of acoustics by Everest, Frederick Alton Pohlmann, Ken C. p.283 If not peace, at least détente. Where is the war? you insulted me i reacted...At least admit it.... Or am i just a "clown" you must calm? i dont hate people at all here.... But i react if attacked like you did.... |
@sbank
.."Maybe certain ss amps that struggle with low end frequency performance in other aspects result in the perceived lack of depth?".. Yes. And, agree some of the solid state amps you suggested don’t struggle with it. Swap in the right Pass or Coda or First Watt and it becomes interesting again. Not all ss amps are created equal as we see here once again. The great amp designers with "good ears folks" around them truly get it. Spec measurement engineers only looking to reduce distortion, not so much. Or, back to the modest mono tube amps and whoop, there it is! |
@decooney Good points. I’m curious about those. @mahgister Rube Goldberg machine is not a put down. They work, after all. They are just very elaborate. Your system fits into this category and works because you've been patient and clever enough to stick with it. Relax. I am not replying anymore to histrionics. |
Between the complete absence of detph imaging and holographic detph imaging filling the room there is many levels of manifestation for this acoustic quality...
Some amplifier are better than others to create it.... This was explained very well by atmasphere posts...
But without acoustic control of the room you cannot hope for the maximal manifestation of this quality in a room....In most of the case for sure... |
And again -- so many words. I am not replying anymore to histrionics. who are you? you just insult me another time... it is amusing? I prefer to be "histrionic" than being like you act.... There is no rule here about the number of words in a post but there is rule about insults.... Study acoustic instead of calling me name and dont upgrade your amplifier without doing it... Histrionic advice... |
But without acoustic control of the room you cannot hope for the maximal manifestation of this quality in a room....In most of the case for sure... From my OP: the amp produces a sound stage that is nicely defined and articulate from left to right, but not as much from front to back.I know my room is capable of that sound stage because my tube amp accomplishes it. See where I said, "my tube amp accomplishes it"? What does "it" mean? Well, that is precisely the point where I told everyone that the room has acoustic control over sound stage, including depth. This is why it is redundant and unnecessary to explain (again and again) why it is important to exercise acoustic control. Got that covered. In the OP. And in my comments. Again and again. Now I am really really done making this point. |
Then it is the amplifier...
case closed...
|
In general, and in my experience, solid state does depth great. Tubes do too, but overall, I do find that tube amps give a bigger sound stage all around, particularly scale of artists and in sound stage width. That said, I am sure there are varying degrees from different solid state vs. tube amps depending on design.
|
@mahgister
Then it is the amplifier...
case closed...
When paying attention to the details, kinda seems that way doesn't it ;) |
@paul79
In general, and in my experience, solid state does depth great. Tubes do too, but overall, I do find that tube amps give a bigger sound stage all around, particularly scale of artists and in sound stage width. That said, I am sure there are varying degrees from different solid state vs. tube amps depending on design. just as a point of discussion, not being disagreeable, my personal finding over the years is the opposite from yours i find good ss amps image wide but generally have more limited depth than similar quality tube amps - ss amps will do depth but it needs to a very good recording with that aspect in spades, otherwise, typical mixed recordings have less front to back layering tube amps otoh generally image slightly wider, sometimes a little bigger but MUCH deeper... i feel stage width and image size is heavily speaker and placement driven, and of course certain speakers, via their design put the image in front of, in line with, of behind their baffle line ... but there is something special that great tube amps in creating a sense of layered depth of the stage |
My two cents on the matter, for what it's worth.
I have Balanced Audio Technology (BAT) preamp and power amp. The preamp is tube gear, as all of the BAT preamps are, and the amp is one of their SS models. My phono stage is also a tube design (Manley Chinook). The room is well treated and the speakers (Dynaudio Contour 60i) are 3 feet from each side wall and 3 feet from the front wall. Soundstage width and depth are wonderful. I thoroughly enjoy that aspect of the system every time I listen to it. However, I wanted more (upgrade-itis, if you will), especially in timbre tone and deeper soundstage. I borrowed a BAT tube amp and placed it where I had my SS amp. That was the only change I made, swapping amps. What I found was the superior timbral tonality I was seeking, but also, the depth of soundstage was a very apparent increase. That actually surprised me because the SS amp does so well in that area. Now, was it because the tube amp is just more compatible with my signal cables and my speakers? I can't honestly say. But I can honestly say that the soundstage depth was improved, and rather significantly. Consequently, I made a purchase of the tube amp and, when it arrives (new unit, on order from BAT by my authorized dealer), will soon be posting my SS amp for sale.
So the bottom line, at least for me, is that the tube amp was superior to the SS amp for soundstage depth and in timbral tone as well. Same brand preamp and amps, all designed to work with one another.
I hope this adds value to the thread. |
@mammothguy54 It adds great value to the thread because you did exactly the same experiment that I did and had exactly the same result. |
My Plinius 9200 has substantial depth in the soundstage.
That said, as understood by most, the difference in the room dictates that to a level you would not at first expect. My old single level ranch house with a 50 ft x 40 ft living room/listening area allowed that to be at its peak. A second acreage, the system didn't sound good at all with everything in tight. My current acreage, despite smaller listening room has dimensions and construction/setup that gets pretty close to what I had in that first place.
At that old place I had a buds Rotel system brought over once and both him and I were stunned how that system sounded in a room where his speakers could be brought out further and things positioned much better for the sound. Make me believe in room as perhaps the most critical factor to top level sound. |
Oh the joy
I have an Oppo 105 with upgraded LPM which was a huge sonic upgrade. It is connected to my Audio Alchemy DDP-1 + PS 5 via the balanced in, which bypasses the DDP-1 dac. I thought I could not shuffle between redbook and SACD. Well, 2 days ago I decided to reconnect my WireWorld Starlight 8 optical cable and was floored by how much smoother the HFs are and how much richer and more out front (3D) the presentation is. But does this mean I have to unplug it to play SACDs? NO! The buttons on the remote allow me to alternate between direct/balance from my 105 for SACDs and selecting optical to play redbook CDs. Yippee!!!
Now in search of a "better" optical cable. Although the
Starlight 8
sounds VG, it is very warm compared to the dryer 105 direct. It might be that I just need to adjust before spending money on a possible wild goose chase. Suggestions?
|
hilde45,
I read your other post on your room treatments. Have you tone frequency sweeps on both amplifiers? With some tube amps with low damping factors coupled with the speakers, you may have some significant changes in the frequency response that changes your impression of the sound. |
@sugabooger
I did do tone frequency sweeps with both amplifiers. Not much difference at all. Nor with impulse responses.
|
Having depth to the sound depends first of all, whether or not it's in the recording that you're listenig to. Next, whether your speakers can recreate the full image that is in the music. And finally if there is anything in your system that is degrading the signal.
And EVERYTHING can degrade the signal. |
@213runnin Thanks. Previous posts in this thread addressed all those things. |
I think that here are two different issues. First is the body and the depth of each instrument, how individual instruments sound. Here I think besides the recording quality, amplifying equipment is definitive. On the other hand, whenever positioning of each musician is regarded, in width or depth, I guess the type and quality of a particular recording is important. Perhaps, recording with a single microphone would be more beneficial. But most jazz recordings are not made this way, mostly classical music I guess. |
@niodari On the other hand, whenever positioning of each musician is regarded, in width or depth, I guess the type and quality of a particular recording is important. This is a valid point. But if one uses the same exact recording and the only change in the entire setup is amplifier -- and then the positioning, width, and especially depth is affected -- then the only thing which can be responsible is the one variable which changed. In this case, it was the amplifier. |
Love the talk about Sansui. I have a 7070 that was bought new in 1977. It has been running in my wife's business for the last 23 years. The only time it has been turned off is for a power outage. This receiver just keeps going. Don't want to reminisce but they made this equipment like tanks. The power supply on this could double for an arch welder. When it was my main rig it powered bose 901’s. Have to admit they sounded pretty good. I have tried the bose with other amps and receivers but nothing could push them like the sansui did. |
the amp produces a sound stage that is nicely defined
and articulate from left to right, but not as much from front to back.I
know my room is capable of that sound stage because my tube amp
accomplishes it. @hilde45 Tubes have long dominated the field when it comes to presenting soundstage width and depth. I've outlined reasons why amps might be weak in this department. In a nutshell, if you want the same depth in a solid state amp, you'll have to move on from the one you have. Its entirely fair to expect a solid state amp to be able to equal tubes in this regard. But IME you'll probably have to audition the candidates side by side with your tube amps to know you're getting what you want. IMO most solid state designs are lacking in this department and its been a problem historically since solid state became practical. But there are designs out there now that appear up to the task. |
Thank you, @atmasphere
I have returned the amp. I'm open to suggestions. |
